|
|
Post by chrisg on Apr 9, 2016 7:03:45 GMT -8
While meditating on clean and unclean foods today, I was struck by the number of times people will dismiss the kosher laws because there is no mention of it in the New Testament.
However, I think I found a place where it is at least hinted at, if not stated directly - and of all people to have recorded it for us, it is in Peter's first epistle. Those who want to say the food laws are no longer applicable often use Peter's vision of Acts 10 to show that God has done away with 'clean and unclean' foods (it's off topic, but I am aware that the vision is about 'unclean' people, not food).
Anyway, in 1 Peter 1v15-16, Peter quotes 'be ye holy for I am holy', words originally spoken by God. I am beginning to understand that it is important to return to the original passage to help us understand what a verse means in its Old Testament context. Looking in the Old testament, there are two places where this sentence is given by God: Leviticus 11v44-45 and Leviticus 19v2. In both those references, the context is clean and unclean meats/foods.
I guess by ignoring the Jewish background to the New Testament, we miss a lot and understand less.
|
|
|
|
Post by garrett on Apr 9, 2016 13:06:47 GMT -8
chrisg - your last sentence is very correct. Ignoring the Jewish background to the "New Testament" results in missing a lot and understanding less. This is because the background of the New Testament IS Jewish - and without that, EVERYTHING can be misunderstood and taken entirely out of context. That is why we are in the mess that exists now. Everything in the Brit Chadashah is an account of things taken to the Jews by the G-d of the Jews, by a Jew, to the Jews of (and in) Israel in order to fulfill biblical prophecy. I don't think that the Brit necessarily "needs" to place a lot of emphasis on clean foods since this has already been addressed since giving of the  at Sinai (and before that). Jews and observant gentiles (think of Luke) understood the kosher laws. Plus, there wasn't any New Testament for them to refer to in their lifetime anyways. It would take a few hundred years for the Testimonies, Letters and John's prophecy to be compiled and made available. The information in the Brit is focused around the fulfillment of prophecy - the Messiah. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 9, 2016 13:40:53 GMT -8
Read the passage again slowly.
Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
There were cow, goat, sheep, deer, etc. in that sheet. There was no reason for Peter not to rise and eat. There are no animals called common in God's law, They are clean or unclean. The clean animals in the sheet were considered "common" because they had been touched by the pigs etc. in the sheet. God was tell Peter to disregard man designation of "common". Peter could approach Gentiles without becoming "common" in God's eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisg on Apr 9, 2016 13:48:18 GMT -8
Read the passage again slowly. Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
There were cow, goat, sheep, deer, etc. in that sheet. There was no reason for Peter not to rise and eat. There are no animals called common in God's law, They are clean or unclean. The clean animals in the sheet were considered "common" because they had been touched by the pigs etc. in the sheet. God was tell Peter to disregard man designation of "common". Peter could approach Gentiles without becoming "common" in God's eyes. that's great - I hadn't thought of it like that before, though I had realised that it was less about food than it was about not excluding gentiles. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 9, 2016 17:37:27 GMT -8
While meditating on clean and unclean foods today, I was struck by the number of times people will dismiss the kosher laws because there is no mention of it in the New Testament. However, I think I found a place where it is at least hinted at, if not stated directly - and of all people to have recorded it for us, it is in Peter's first epistle. Those who want to say the food laws are no longer applicable often use Peter's vision of Acts 10 to show that God has done away with 'clean and unclean' foods (it's off topic, but I am aware that the vision is about 'unclean' people, not food). Anyway, in 1 Peter 1v15-16, Peter quotes 'be ye holy for I am holy', words originally spoken by God. I am beginning to understand that it is important to return to the original passage to help us understand what a verse means in its Old Testament context. Looking in the Old testament, there are two places where this sentence is given by God: Leviticus 11v44-45 and Leviticus 19v2. In both those references, the context is clean and unclean meats/foods. I guess by ignoring the Jewish background to the New Testament, we miss a lot and understand less. You seem to have stumbled upon Rabbi Hillel’s second rule of scriptural exegesis:
G'zerah Shavah (Equivalence of expressions): an analogy is made between two separate texts based on similar phrasing, or a similar word or root word in Hebrew. For example, speaking of the vow of the Nazorite:
Numbers 6:5a (ESV) “All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head.
Judges 13:5 (ESV) for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.”
In comparing these verses we can conclude that Samson is a Nazorite.
1 Samuel 1:11 (ESV) And she vowed a vow and said, “O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.”
So because of the similar phrasing we can conclude that Samuel, like Samson, was a Nazorite, even though the text does not use that term.
This example came up in several of the searches I did, so if you want to dig through it here it is. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around it right now:
In Hebrews 3:6-4:13 Paul compares Ps. 95:7-11 = Heb. 3:7-11 to Gen. 2:2 = Heb. 4:4 based on the words "works" and "day"/"today" ("today" in Hebrew is literally "the day"). Paul concludes from this exegesis that there will be 6,000 yrs. of this world followed by a 1,000 yr. shabbat.
At any rate, there are many different methods of exegesis taught by the various Rabbis. However it is generally thought that Yeshua more closely followed Hillel than any of the others. Hillel’s methods are certainly more easily understood by simple folk (like me, at least on the good days).
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 10, 2016 3:57:33 GMT -8
I don't think that the Brit necessarily "needs" to place a lot of emphasis on clean foods since this has already been addressed since giving of the at Sinai (and before that). Really good point. The biggest indication that the dietary laws weren't changed may be the lack of concrete attention given to them. G-d is very specific and clear in His instructions and expectations; always has been. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisg on Apr 10, 2016 4:58:22 GMT -8
That is true, but the reason Christians often give for not following those laws is that they are not repeated in the New Covenant Scriptures. I was kind of pleased to find somewhere that they clearly are repeated
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 10, 2016 5:30:20 GMT -8
I guess my gut instinct is that the burden of proof needs to be shifted to the Christians. It seems we are always in the position of defending what the Bible actually says when perhaps turning the question around to them doing that may be most helpful. In the Acts passage for example, Peter goes on a few verses later to explain what the vision meant himself. in general, it seems to me that Christians have more to explain than us.
They need to back up the changes they say G-d made concretely, and because He made no changes, I think with a little further reading and awareness of G-d's character they will find they can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 10, 2016 7:40:50 GMT -8
I guess my gut instinct is that the burden of proof needs to be shifted to the Christians. It seems we are always in the position of defending what the Bible actually says when perhaps turning the question around to them doing that may be most helpful. In the Acts passage for example, Peter goes on a few verses later to explain what the vision meant himself. in general, it seems to me that Christians have more to explain than us. They need to back up the changes they say G-d made concretely, and because He made no changes, I think with a little further reading and awareness of G-d's character they will find they can't. You are correct. They cannot stand up to scrutiny with their beliefs. However beware, they have the proof texts drilled into them and they will throw these out at you, often machine gun style. You need to be ready to sit down with them and go verse by verse and line by line and show them where they are wrong. And be aware, most of them have been so brainwashed that at some point they'll leave your conversation and return to their own filthy pen to listen to the swine speak Greek to them. The truth is to them as pearls cast before swine.
But every once in a while, someone will listen, and so we are responsible to tell whoever is put in front of us. Remember, it may be you that needed the training this time. Or he may need to be told 7 times, and you are the 5th. Don't break that chain; and don't get disappointed. It's between them and God, and God knows; and if he is searching, God won't let him go. But in the end, he has free will and we are only responsible to tell him when he wants to hear.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisg on Apr 10, 2016 12:55:32 GMT -8
Trouble is, in the main, they don't listen or want to discuss and end up throwing accusations around and name-calling instead of rationally discussing things. Or else they try to bully you into changing your view so it matches theirs. I think secretly they are afraid you might be right and it upsets their thinking - they don't want to change and they don't want to think that hard!
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 10, 2016 13:34:50 GMT -8
There are some people you just can't talk to. I personally avoid getting into arguments because I have yet to achieve anything from that. When I start feeling like it's all about defending myself and someone ranting at me I just refuse to go there. Whatever wisdom or truth you offer will likely be misused anyway. That was kind of what I was trying to get at with us not feeling like we need to defend ourselves so much. In my experience, once it gets to that point, it's not going to be useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisg on Apr 10, 2016 13:48:05 GMT -8
I have to admit, I love a good discussion - but this bullying and name calling is something else! People who feel threatened by an argument or who have no proper response should just let it be and not gang up on those who express a different point of view
Maybe you can tell, but I was a lawyer in another life and loved being able to make a good argument with evidence to win my case.
|
|
|
|
Post by garrett on Apr 10, 2016 14:46:26 GMT -8
Trouble is, in the main, they don't listen or want to discuss and end up throwing accusations around and name-calling instead of rationally discussing things. Or else they try to bully you into changing your view so it matches theirs. I think secretly they are afraid you might be right and it upsets their thinking - they don't want to change and they don't want to think that hard! Now we know how Yeshua, his disciples and Shaul felt...multiplied by X20. And they were in the right place at the right time. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 10, 2016 16:41:53 GMT -8
I don't want to turn this into a Christian-bash, but I feel ya' all! Frankly, they aren't stupid, just stiff necked and mule headed! I think that when presented plainly with the truth, they recognize it; they know they are wrong. But they do not want to change, to move out of their comfort zone. This is why some of you are getting these negative reactions. You are, in effect, destroying their excuse before God; and they don't like it! Like ha'satan at the fall and like Adam and Chava before them, they want to do it their way. They want to tell God how they will "worship" Him.
"No boundaries! We got grace! Don't tell me the 'LAW' is still in effect! I don't want to do it, and I'll scream in your face so you can't make me!"
Hey, no need to scream. If you don't want to hear, I won't tell you. Have a nice afterlife ...
There is another thing though, and you can't just walk away from it. You were once one of them. Now you follow a different path, and you can prove everything you say. Your very existence apart from them is an affront; a constant reminder that they are wrong. Expect to be pressured, then ostracized. Expect rumors and lies about you- lashon hara. And expect repercussions on your family, especially if they are still in the process of converting. It may be a good idea to keep a low profile if they are still in church.
I will tell you another  thing before it happens to you. But if you are talking to someone who is unsaved about Yeshua, and a Christian who knows you are Messianic is there, there's a good chance he will step in and start arguing with you about "the true gospel." I had that happen. I backed out of it because the persons spiritual well being was more important than winning an argument. And not all of them are like that; just be aware it can happen. Any more I won't witness in front of Christians. I'll witness TO Christians, but that is a whole different thing. But once burned- never again if I can help it.
There are some Christians who walk with God and show more fruits than I do. And while I won't take communion with them or participate in parties, I still call them brothers. I think we (especially me) need to remind ourselves that it is just the really bad ones that stand out. Most do us no harm. But just as important, be aware that at least to some extent churches are the enemies turf. And bet he has people in every one of them; in some, he holds absolute sway!
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by chrisg on Apr 11, 2016 0:53:35 GMT -8
I posted Ephesians 4v32 and asked why the name calling. The response I got was 'you will have to get accustomed'. Really?? I am so for them - they call themselves Christians and act as though it doesn't matter if they push people away. And yes, I do remember I was in the same doctrinal boat not many weeks ago. But now my eyes have been opened, I want everyone else to know the truth too. It reminds me of when we home schooled our children. Those in the church were set against us from the start; the people who thought it was wonderful and wanted us to teach their children too, were those who hardly ever darkened the door of a church or any other 'religious' building. So ! |
|
at Sinai (and before that). Jews and observant gentiles (think of Luke) understood the kosher laws. Plus, there wasn't any New Testament for them to refer to in their lifetime anyways. It would take a few hundred years for the Testimonies, Letters and John's prophecy to be compiled and made available. The information in the Brit is focused around the fulfillment of prophecy - the Messiah.
thing before it happens to you. But if you are talking to someone who is unsaved about Yeshua, and a Christian who knows you are Messianic is there, there's a good chance he will step in and start arguing with you about "the true gospel." I had that happen. I backed out of it because the persons spiritual well being was more important than winning an argument. And not all of them are like that; just be aware it can happen. Any more I won't witness in front of Christians. I'll witness TO Christians, but that is a whole different thing. But once burned- never again if I can help it. 
